Introduction

If prepared correctly, charts and graphs can communicate ideas and relationships more effectively than a simple table. A chart can give coherence to large quantities of numbers,

and it can facilitate comparisons among various types of data. A graph can provide a wealth of information at a glance.

Nevertheless, there are dangers in using such

When preparing a presentation chart, consider the following:

•Is a chart the best way to communicate the information? Often, a table is easier to understand.

•Is the kind of chart selected the best for the situation? There are many alternatives to rows of bars and wedges of pie.

visual aids. Edward Tufte, a Yale professor, consults with TV networks, corporations, and the U.S. government on the display of statistics. Writing in the American Institute of Graphic Arts’

Journal of Graphic Design, he discusses the tendency to overuse graphics when preparing charts:

The excuse for decoration is often,“The data is boring, and we need to make it come alive.” Well, if the numbers are boring, then you’ve got the wrong numbers. Decoration won’t save the day. Note the hidden assumption here that the audience for graphics is probably somewhat thick-headed, requiring a visual trick to induce them to look at some numbers. We should reject the quality-corrupting doctrines that numbers are boring and that graphics are for those with short attention spans. These doctrines blame the victims (the data and the audience) rather than the perpetrators. Finally, garish but data-starved graphics reduce the credibility of presentations, for most audiences will have a natural suspicion of hyped graphics. Who would trust a chart that looks like a video game?

•Is a key or legend required or can the material be labeled directly?

•Is the page cluttered? To simplify the presentation, can the information be combined into fewer charts or can some of the data be carried over to another page? Can the explanatory type and labels be better organized?

On the following pages of this section,

•at the top are some typical GE charts prepared before these guidelines were developed

•at the bottom are the same charts redesigned to simplify the information and make it easier to read

Note: The guidelines in Section 04 apply to all presentation materials, regardless of form.

Edward Tufte’s book,

The Visual Display of Quantitative Information

(Graphics Press, Cheshire, Connecticut, 1983) includes the table shown at the right.

It highlights the differences between graphics that are friendly and easily understood and those that are unfriendly and obscure.

The original flow chart at the left is a hodgepodge of elements (collectively known as chart junk), that should be avoided in all presentation materials, including

•borders

•words consisting of all-capital letters

•coarse screens (linear and dot patterns)

•shadows

•oddly shaped boxes

•grossly deformed arrows

Ridding the page of chart junk unclutters it. Using only the necessary design elements,

•simple boxes

•arrows

helps present the information much more clearly.

Making the most important verbal element into a headline at the top of the page simplifies the layout and clarifies the point of the chart.

The type is much easier to read when set in upperand lowercase letters instead of the all-capital letters used in the chart above.

Examples are reductions of 11 x 8 1⁄2 - inch formats.

Customers Use Third-Party And In-House Services Because Of Cost

Advantages

Type of service arrangement R&F/Rad

(N=1554)

In the original pie chart at the left,

•the screens are so visually active, they are distracting, interfering with the quick understanding of the chart

•the type in the labels is so small, it is barely legible

Original overhead transparency

Redesign with Univers 68 and 55

Since a comparison of two or more charts is not required here, an all-black pie chart is easy to understand and free of visual distraction, as shown in the example at the left.

In the original pie chart above, the white boxes within the wedges, which are used to contain three

of the labels, hinder the size comparison of the wedges. Reversing the label information in white from an all-black pie could eliminate this problem, but some of the wedges are too small to accommodate the required type. Setting the label type in a size large enough to be easily read and neatly organizing the labels around the chart, as shown in the example, solves the problem.

Examples are reductions of 11 x 8 1⁄2 - inch formats.

UTILITIES’ USE OF OUTSIDE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIERS IS GREATEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. MOST JOB MANAGEMENT AND CRAFT LABOR SERVICES ARE PERFORMED WITH IN-HOUSE STAFF.

Utility Use of Outside Maintenance Suppliers

(% Respondents Subcontracting Various Amounts)

Contract Out No Work

Contract Out 1-50%

Contract Out 51-100%

Original overhead transparency

Utilities’ use of outside maintenance suppliers is greatest for technical assistance. Most job management and craft labor services are performed with in-house staff.

Utility use of outside maintenance suppliers

(% respondents subcontracting various amounts)

As shown in the original overhead transparency at the left, the following elements impair legibility and impede understanding of

the chart:

•all-capital letters in the headline

•distracting screens

•white box labels for each wedge

Compared to the example above, the example at the left shows that

•the headline, set in upperand lowercase letters, is much easier to read than the all-capital headline

•the fine screens of black, used to make the shades of grey in the pie wedges, eliminate the visual distraction of coarse screen patterns

•by combining some of the type elements into blocks above the pie charts, the layout has been simplified